Category Archives: News

The Angel of Akita requests Prayers of Reparation for Desecration of the Vatican

The miraculous statue of Our Lady of Akita weeps for the sins of mankind.

By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

On the Feast of Saint Francis, Bergoglio had a pagan ritual honoring Pachamama in the Vatican gardens, during which time idolatrous worship was given idols and a tree was planted to placate the demon goddess of earth. This was the first abomination. Then Bergoglio had the idol brought into Saint Peter’s and receive veneration there, along with a bowl of desecrated earth.

Most Catholics do not know, but to desecrate the Vatican Gardens is an extremely diabolic act, because when Pope Leo XIII in his haste to discover the bones of St Peter had some poorly trained Archeologists dig up the tomb of Saint Peter beneath the High Altar, they dumped all the dirt they found IN THE VATICAN GARDENS. Later is was realized that that DIRT was the ashes of Saint Peter the Apostle and the Roman Martyrs burned on stakes by the Emperor Nero.

Therefore, to desecrate the Vatican Gardens is to desecrate the SPIRITUAL FOUNDATIONS of the Church of Rome. It is a ghastly vile act!

Akita, Japan

It was not surprising, therefore, that two days later the Angel of Akita, who had appeared to Sister Agnes Sasagawa 46 years ago, should appear again. If you do not know, at Akita, which is an approved apparition of Our Lady, Our Lady’s Statue wept repeatedly in the presence of Catholics and pagans, and forewarned of a great battle inside the Church between Cardinals and Bishops. (Google “Our Lady of Akita” for more about this apparition).

I report this, because, in my work for Ordo Militaris Inc., I had the unique opportunity to visit Akita in May and pray before the miraculous statue of Our Lady. The Message of Akita is about our days and it is a powerful call to repentance, constancy, perseverance and fortitude in the face of lies and wickedness.

Remember, the Message of Akita:

If men did not repent, Our Lady at Akita warned of world wide destruction by fire from the sky, and said that Catholics would have no consolation in those terrible days but the Holy Rosary and the Sign of Her Son (the Cross). That the living would envy the dead.

I mention, on my own authority, that Tertullian, a Father of the Church, taught that the worst sin of mankind is THE SIN OF IDOLATRY and that this sin alone MERITS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD. A destruction forestalled only by Christ’s Sacrifice on Calvary and mankind’s acceptance of that Sacrifice. This is the logic of the Apocalypse: when mankind rejects the Gospel at the end of time, that Destruction will rain down upon the whole world.

So you can infer the connections between these events and what Bergoglio did and is doing.

Message of the Angel of Akita

The Message was given on October 6 of this year, and is reported by WQPH of North Worcester, Massachusetts, USA, which is an EWTN affiliate. Their report is here in full (link).

Here is the message:

This is the speech said by Sister Sasagawa that Sister M heard firsthand.

On Sunday, October 6th at 3:30am in Akita, the same angel appeared before me (Sister Sasagawa) as from some 30 years ago (see Note 1).  The angel first told me (Sister Sasagawa) something  private.

The good thing to convey to everyone is, “Cover in ashes” (see Note 2) “and please pray the Penitential Rosary every day.  You (Sister Sasagawa) become like an child and every day please give sacrifice.”

Ms. S was asked by Sister M, may I tell everyone about this?, which when asked, per Sister M, she was told Okay by Sister Sasagawa.  Also, “Please pray that I (Sasagawa) be able to be like an child and give sacrifice,” was said by Ms. S as heard by Sister M.

-end of message-

Note 1: In Akita, the angel that appeared before Sister Sasagawa as a woman, and without thinking, Sister Sasagawa blurted out “Older sister”.  It seems she resembled her older sister who had died.  She was told “No, I am something that protects you.”

And then, “Let’s go to church”, and Sasagawa was guided there.  (It is thought to be the guardian angel of Komatsu).

Note 2: Jonah’s prophecy (Jonah 3:1-10) (October 8th first reading) clad in sackcloth and sit upon ashes.

Since an Angel from Heaven asked us to make reparation like Jonah (see scriptural references here) I strongly urge everyone to do this.

The Penitential Rosary, what is it? Why pray it?

Here is the text of the Penitential Rosary in English, for those who have never heard of this devotion:

http://avalon44.tripod.com/r/pr.htm

Please note, that this devotion is approved by the Church.

Please note the REASONS why the Penitential Rosary is to be recited, which reasons explain why the Angel of Akita asked that we pray it, in response to the sacrileges at the Vatican:

THE PENITENTIAL ROSARY IS RECITED:

1. To implore mercy and pardon for our sins, and for all the sins of our brethren.
2. To obtain the grace of conversion, a sincere sacramental confession, and amendment of life.

Also, read what is said at the bottom of the link for the Penitential Rosary to understand more about this and why an Angel of Heaven was sent to give this message to the world.  This, I believe, is a lot more important than initiatives by men who should be doing their duty, but instead pray. For us without such a duty to act, we should be the ones praying.

Now, the combining of this Office with the Holy Rosary, said with arms extended in the form of a cross, has also been dictated by God Our Lord to Maria Concepcion Zuniga recently. He told her that “this will be a Penitential Rosary that will please the Heavenly Father a great deal,” because He, Christ, would be the One Who would stand before the faithful who recite it and offer it in remission for all the sins of the world – their own and those of others.

Among the members of a single family (as we human beings are), there must be solidarity. Some must compensate for others. And in the measure that we see God offended, in that measure we must offer penance, counteracting the works of the disordered world with works of virtue, of charity, and of atonement, for the purpose of attaining forgiveness for everyone.

Finally, the whole import of this Message from Heaven is this: IF YOU are in the state of mortal sin, habitual sin, have not confessed, YOU BETTER RUN TO CONFESSION as soon as possible, because God’s patience is running out. He is going to destroy this world sooner than we think, and the spiritual consequence of Bergoglio’s monstrosities will be terrible wars and persecutions, just like the false messiah was awarded a peace price but when on to cause 17 or more wars and the deaths of millions.

 

May 30, 2010, Our Lady of the Pine forewarned the world about Bergoglio, the imposter

Here at the From Rome Blog private unapproved revelations are not normally discussed. But when an as-of-yet unapproved private revelation exactly foretells 9 years beforehand what is happening today, every Catholic has to stop and wonder and pay attention, because God alone knows the future of contingent events… Here follows our English translation of the words of Our Lady of the Pine on May 30, 2010, to a humble soul in the environs of Avola, Sicily, in the Diocese of Noto: (Italian original)

Our Lady: “My Sons, today I desire to share with you this wonderful friendship and the joy, that one finds in helping others.

All this while I have been inviting you, as a preparation, to the parousia of My Son in His second coming. I am pointing out to you this bridge of protection which We are giving you, and you will be escorted to My triumph, by means of the purification I am providing.

You must understand that We are protecting your souls.

Do not fear what will happen, these are things which must happen, but occupy yourselves solely with your duty to My Son.

You, Giuseppe, have the great responsibility to reveal to the world Our messages, but do it with joy, as an instrument of God.

Except for the messages of March 25, 2010, of the night of April 9, 2010 and that of April 11, all the others have been published, but no one wanted to listen to Our words.

Everything which has happened and which will happen has been revealed and no one can say: “We were not told beforehand”.

You have been called to be a living witness of God.

Announce that sorrows, horrors will yet occur.  Entire nations will disappear from the Earth and all humanity will drink the bitter chalice.

My Sons, walk on this bridge which I have indicated to you, to share with Us the joy and the era of peace on earth for yourselves.

Evil will be driven out and the victory of My Son will liberate you, but you must pray to have guidance, because very soon you will see a schism in My Church.

My faithful remnant follows the present Pope, Benedict XVI, whom they want to eliminate.

Continue to follow him and to remain faithful to Him and to the teaching of My Church, founded upon the Apostles. Do not allow yourselves to be turned aside by the apostasy and by heresies.

I tell you, that the next pope will be an imposter and the forces of evil stand behind this schism.

My Sons, be prepared, in this way you can follow those priests who are faithful to the Pope and to the teaching of the Church. Preserve the holy Missals and the books of the old Holy Mass, because the apostates will change the words in a dramatic way.

My sons and daughters, have courage and trust.  You, My son, do not fear if you are persecuted for Our cause, I and My Son will be with you to protect you and to help you in this hard trial.

Blessing you all, I am Mary, the Immaculate Virgin, the Mother of Sorrows.

La rinuncia di Papa Benedetto è valida, o è viziata da un errore sostanziale?

07-Ratzinger-ciao-OR

Se Papa Bendetto XVI mediante l’atto espresso nella sua dichiarazione, « Non solum propter », ha rinunciato o meno all’ufficio del Vescovo di Roma?

UNA QUESTIONE DISPUTATA

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Lo Stato Attuale della Questione

L’eminente teologo vaticano ed ex membro della Congregazione per la Fede, Monsignor Nicola Bux, ha pubblicamente affermato che la questione della validità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI andrebbe studiata, e precisamente per ciò che sembra essere un errore sostanziale, contenuto nell formula di rinuncia usata da Papa Benedetto XVI l’ 11 Febbraio 2013.

Il Mons. Bux non è stato l’unico a sollevare questo problema. In effetti, i dubbi sulla validità dell’atto di dimissioni sono stati evidenziati immediatamente dopo la notizia. Flavien Blanchon, un giornalista francese che lavora a Roma, ne scriveva appena 2 giorni dopo, citando un eminente studioso latino che aveva notato la presenza di errori contenuti nel testo della rinuncia, osservando che la presenza di qualsiasi errore, secondo la tradizione canonica, fosse da considerarsi causa di mancata deliberazione, con conseguente nullità dell’atto.

Un anno dopo Antonio Socci ha posto apertamente la questione. Le dimissioni potrebbero non essere valide, per mancanza di voglia, cioè della volontà interiore della quale poteva disporre Benedetto. Nello stesso anno abbiamo il notevole studio di Padre Stefano Violi, Professore di diritto canonico presso l’Istituto teologico di Lugano, in Svizzera: ”La rinuncia di Papa Benedetto XVI tra storia , legge e consapevolezza” , 2014, un esame approfondito dell’argomento dal punto di vista del diritto canonico. Leggere questo contributo è obbligatorio per la ricca citazione tratta dalla storia canonica delle dimissioni papali e tuttavia, pur senza sollevare il problema dell’invalidità canonica dell’atto. Ma, questo studio di Padre Violi, nell’inquadrare la questione delle dimissioni sotto il profilo del ministero attivo, e non riguardo al munus, ha chiarito che la questione dell’Errore Sostanziale è un problema vero, presente nel testo, che riguarda dunque l’atto stesso.

Tuttavia 19 giugno 2016 Ann Barnhardt, dagli Stati Uniti, ha sollevato specificamente la questione del dubbio derivante dal canone 188 , che sottolinea come l’errore sostanziale, in qualsiasi caso, sia base idonea e sufficiente a sostanziare i motivi per una determinazione canonica nel senso dell’invalidità dell’atto. Intervento, questo, successivo ai notevoli commenti del segretario personale di Papa Benedetto, del 20 maggio, ove si affermava che Benedetto occupasse ancora l’ufficio papale. Ancora: Il blogger Sarmaticus, in Inghilterra, ha discusso la questione sollevata dalle parole di Ganswein il 5 agosto 2016, sottolineando il significato di ciò che l’arcivescovo aveva detto all’ Università Gregoriana, in un post intitolato: Il rasoio di Occam trovare : Benedetto ancora papa , Francisco è un papa falso , la Chiesa universale versa in un stato di necessità sin dal 24 aprile 2005.

Anche il Vescovo emerito del Corpus Domini, in Texas, negli Stati Uniti, ed ex membro dell’Opus Dei, Monsignore René Enri Gracida ha sollevato lo stesso dubbio, ed anche altri, sulla validità delle dimissioni. Sono a conoscenza che il Vescovo abbia scritto a molti membri della Sacra Gerarchia e della Curia su queste questioni per sollecitare l’azione da intraprendere. (cf. abyssum.org : Suggerisci una dichiarazione pubblica di 12 cardinali prima di Bergoglio).

Secondo quanto riferito da Ann Barnhart, l’anno successivo, anche l’avvocato Chris Ferrara e la signora Anne Kreitzer nutrivano lo stesso dubbio. Lo storico Richard Cowden Guido ha detto la stessa cosa l’11 maggio 2017. Il famoso scrittore italiano Antonio Socci , ha citato attentamente il Violi il 31 maggio 2017, ed anche lui ha condiviso e sostenuto la stessa tesi. 11 agosto 2017, in Sud America: lo spettacolo televisivo cattolico Café con Galat in un’edizione in lingua inglese ha discusso i motivi per i quali Papa Benedetto XVI rimane il vero papa. E’ stata sottolineata tanto la mancanza di libertà nell’atto quanto la questione relativa alla mancanza di conformità ex Canone 332 §2 in combinato disposto con Canone 188.

Un po’ prima del marzo 2018 padre Paul Kramer negli Stati Uniti ha ugualmente sostenuto la nullità delle dimissioni ex canone 188, per mancanza di conformità ex al canone 332 §2 , ove viene detto ministerium invece di munus. Ancora: nel Maggio dell’anno scorso al più tardi, il Padre Juan Juárez Falcón in Spagna ha presentato la motivazione canonica dell’invalidità delle dimissioni sulla base dell’errore stanziale, in un articolo intitolato ” Due motivi gravi “. In coincidenza temporale anche Il Dr. José Alberto Villasana Munguía ha svolto le stesse considerazioni il 27 giugno, dal Messico.

Ed infine abbiamo Papa Benedetto XVI che ci offre un indici offre un indizio di interpretazione autentica, anzi zio di interpretazione autentica, anzi qualcosa di più, nelle sue lettere private al cardinale tedesco Brandmüller, pubblicate nell’estate del qualcosa di più, nelle sue lettere private al cardinale tedesco Brandmüller, pubblicate nell’estate del 2018, ove chiede 2018, ove chiede apertamenteapertamente suggerimenti riguardo alla maniera migliore di dimettersi, nel caso suggerimenti riguardo alla maniera migliore di dimettersi, nel caso ciò non fosse giciò non fosse già avvenuto nella maniera corretta.à avvenuto nella maniera corretta.

Dunque sono tanti i cattolici di spicco a sostenere questo dubbio, e poiché il teologo Nicola Bux ha richiesto un’indagine su questo argomento, aggiungerò qui in forma scolastica qualche ragione in favore della nullità, in corso dei quali rifiuterò tutti gli argomenti sostanziali contrari ad esso.

Tutti gli argomenti pro e contro devono intedersi nel constesto di canoni,

124 §1, che legge: “Per la validità di un atto giuridio si richiede che sia postao da una persona abilpersona abile, e che in esso ci sia ciò che costituisce essenzialmente l’atto stesso, come pure le formalità e i requisiti imposti dal diritto per la validità dell’atto.

188,  che legge: La rinuncia fatta per timore grave, ingiustamente indotto, per dolo o per errore errore sostanziale, oppure con simonia, è irritus per il diritto stesso.

332 §2, che legge: Se capita che il Romano Pontefici rincunci al suo munus si richiede per la validità che la rinuncia sia fatta liberamente e che venga debitamente manifestata e al contrario non si richiede che qualcuno la accetti.

È importante anche notare, per le persone di madre lingua tedesca che il Codice di Diritto fornisce una traduzione erronea per munus, come Dienst, in canone 145 §1, dove se la parola latina venisse tradotta si dovrebbe renderla come Verantwortung che è la traduzione del sinonimo giusto per munus in latino, come in latino, come onus (onere).

Per il resto, scaricare il documento intero in PDF.

————–

(See the English original for the footnotes)

How Cardinal Sodano robbed the Papacy from Pope Benedict!

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

As I have reported before, in February 2013 there was a de facto coup d’etat at the Vatican, the result of which was the imprisonment of Pope Benedict XVI, and the convocation of an illegal, illicit and invalid Conclave, which resulted in the illegal, illicit and invalid election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Now, I invite the entire Church to examine more carefully what happened in the 58 minutes after the Consistory of February 11, 2013, which ended just before noon, Rome time, on that day.

According to Canon Law, it was the grave and solemn duty of the Dean of the College of Cardinals to approach Pope Benedict and ask for a written copy of his act of Renunciation.

Here are the relevant Canons of the Code of 1983 which regulate what should have been done:

Can. 40 — Exsecutor alicuius actus administrativi invalide suo munere fungitur, antequam litteras receperit earumque authenticitatem et integritatem recognoverit, nisi praevia earundem notitia ad ipsum auctoritate eundem actum edentis transmissa fuerit.

Can. 41 — Exsecutor actus administrativi cui committitur merum exsecutionis ministerium, exsecutionem huius actus denegare non potest, nisi manifesto appareat eundem actum esse nullum aut alia ex gravi causa sustineri non posse aut condiciones in ipso actu administrativo appositas non esse adimpletas; si tamen actus administrativi exsecutio adiunctorum personae aut loci ratione videatur inopportuna, exsecutor exsecutionem intermittat; quibus in casibus statim certiorem faciat auctoritatem quae actum edidit.

Needless to say, I have added some color to the letters of the text to make it clear that, in the very 2 Canons which Cardinal Sodano should have carefully read and acted upon, there is made by the Code itself the distinction between munus and ministerium. And yet for 6 years, and especially during the last 12 months, those who have sustained that the renunciation was valid, dared use the argument that there no distinction between the terms!

It seems so true, that it is almost a law, that whatever one investigates about the Pontificate of Bergoglio, one uncovers nothing but lies and frauds. This is clearly the greatest.

The Laws which governed what Cardinal Sodano should have done

Because in that key moment, before Sodano through Father Lombardi gave the Sig.ra Chirri the go ahead to publish to the world that Benedict had resigned, He will leave the Pontificate on Feb. 28 (B16 è dimesso. Lascia il Pontificato Feb 28), he HAD TO read these 2 canons, or at least recall them.

Let us therefore take a closer look at these 2 canons, which regard what is to be done when someone, with mere Executive authority, receives notice from someone, with the jurisdiction to posit an adminstrative act, that he is to take an action.

My English translation of the Canons:

Canon 40: The executor of any administrative act invalidly conducts his office (suo munero), before he receives the documents (letteras) and certifies (recognoverit) their integrity and authenticity, unless previous knowledge of them has been transmitted to him by the authority publishing the act itself.

Canon 41: The executor of an administrative act to whom there has been committed the mere ministry (ministerium) of execution, cannot refuse execution of the act, unless the same act appears to be null from (something) manifest [manifesto] or cannot be sustained for any grave cause or the conditions in the administrative act itself do not seem to be able to have been fulfilled: however, if the execution of the administrative act seems inopportune by reason of place or adjoined persons, let the executor omit the execution; in which cases let him immediately bring the matter to the attention of (certiorem faciat) the authority which published the act.

What Cardinal Sodano did

First, as Canon 40 states, Cardinal Sodano’s first duty was to ask Pope Benedict XVI for a written copy of the Act of Renunciation. This is because, as read out-loud, anyone fluent in Latin, as Cardinal Sodano is reputed to be, would have noticed multiple errors in the Latin, most grievous of which was the enunciation of commisum not commiso by the Holy Father. This touched upon the integrity of the act.

Second, in receiving the Act of Renunciation in the authentic Latin Text, and finding that it was as it was intended to be read, he was obliged to examine if the act was in conformity with Canon 332 §2, which reads:

Canon 332 § 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

My translation:

Canon 332 §2. If it happen that the Roman Pontiff renounce his office (muneri suo), for validity there is required that the renunciation be done freely and duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone whomsoever.

And thus, in this examination, the Cardinal had to confront the very Distinction between munus and ministerium that was founded in the Act of Renunciation, which contains the terms munus and ministerium, but renounces only the ministerium!

Clearly anyone reading Canon 40, would see that munus means office or charge! And in reading canon 41 that ministerium means execution of the duties of the office. Clearly he would as Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals realize that it is one thing to have a munus to do something, quite another to put into motion his ministerium to execute it. — He was acting on the very basis of that distinction, because before he acted, he held the munus to act, and in acting he executed the ministerium to act!

For this reason, Cardinal Sodano must be questioned if not publicly accused of having closed his eyes! That is, of having ignored the distinction and his own grave duty and invalidly executed his office, by declaring the act a valid act of renunciation of the papal office!

This is especially true, because Canon 41 forbids (“let him omit the execution“) and Canon 40 invalidates the action of the executor to proceed to any action, not only because the core act of renunciation was invalid, as per canon 188 (for substantial error), to effect the loss of papal office, but also because, being invalid, the Cardinal Dean could NOT recognize that the command to call a conclave was opportune.

There are other anomalies in the Act of Renunciation which also should have caused the Cardinal to stop and refer to Pope Benedict, namely:

  1. The Act of Renunciation is not an act of renunciation, but the declaration of an act of renunciation. As such it lacks the formal quality of a canonical act per se, since it is one thing to announce, another to enact!
  2. The Act of Renunciation contains what appears to be a command to call a conclave. But this command is NOT a command, because it is a declaration not a command, and it is made in the First Person singular, which signifies the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, NOT the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the pope. But the man who is the pope, inasmuch as he is the man, whether he has renounced or not cannot call a Conclave, since he has no authority to do so!
  3. The Act of Renunciation contains no derogation of any terms of canon law which it violates as is required by canon 38.
  4. The errors in the Latin demonstrated clearly that the Holy Father had prepared the Act in secret without the counsel of canon lawyers and Latinists, and that therefore, it may lack formal interior consent or be based on other errors of fact or law or comprehension of Latin.

Thus, for Cardinal Sodano to proceed to act as if the renunciation were valid, violated the general principle of law, that the validity of the renunciation of power or right is NOT to be presumed.

This is a general principle of jurisprudence and is even found in Canon Law, in an applied form, in Canon 21:

Can. 21 — In dubio revocatio legis praeexistentis non praesumitur, sed leges posteriores ad priores trahendae sunt et his, quantum fieri potest, conciliandae.

Canon 21In doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws are to be compared with prior ones, as much as can be done, be reconciled to them.

In a word, Cardinal Sodano by acting was claiming a munus to act (Canon 40) and using that authority to exercise a ministry (Canon 41) to deny that the Pope had a munus which had to be renounced (Canon 332 §2)!

Thus the Act of Renunciation appeared to be null from MANY manifest aspects of the terminology and grammatical structure. Canon 41 therefore required that he confer with the Pope to have them corrected! Canon 40 invalidated any action he took prior to recognizing the act as authentic and integral, that is, not canonically invalid, irritus or null. — And in Canon Law, as per canon 17, to recognize something as valid, does NOT mean insisting it is valid, when it is not! That is fraud.

By omitting the honest fulfillment of his duties, he acted with reckless disregard for his own office as Dean. He exploited the canonical defects in the Act to perpetrate a horrible crime of misrepresentation. This was tantamount to robbing the Roman Pontiff of his office by exploiting his authority, so as to declare valid what was invalid to produce a papal resignation!

Thus, according to the terms of Canon 40 and 41, Cardinal Sodano should have acted differently. The act of renunciation was of ministry, not of munus, and therefore was NOT an act of resignation. Therefore the declaration of a resignation, which had to have emanated from Cardinal Sodano’s desk, was a canonical lie and fraud! And since, ignorance of the law in those who should know the law is not presumed, Cardinal Sodano cannot be excused from an abuse of his office (munus).

What Cardinal Sodano should have done!

Upon receiving the document of Renunciation, and noticing that the renunciation of ministerium was not the act specified by Canon 332 §2, he should have spoken with Pope Benedict in the presence of 2 credible witnesses and brought this to his attention, as Canon 41 requires. Then he should have asked whether it was his intention to renounce the Petrine munus or simply to renounce the Petrine Ministerium. In the latter case, he should have (1) asked the Holy Father to issue a Motu Proprio naming someone to be his Vicar extraordinaire who would have the potestas executionis but not the office of the Pope, during the remainder of his life, OR, (2) in the case that he indicated that it was his intention to resign the papal office, he then should have asked him to sign a corrected copy of the act, containing the word muneri instead of ministerio and correcting all the other errors, whether of form, of Latin, or grammatical structure etc.. To have done anything less would be a grave sin of disrespect for the Office of the Successor of St. Peter, to which the Cardinal was bound by solemn vow to protect and defend.

Simple. Easy. Legal, Legit. By failing to do that, he convened an illicit, illegal and invalid Conclave, and made Bergoglio an Antipope, not the Pope!

(Photo Credits: CTV)

 

Bergoglio declares to Scalafari: “I am the proof … that Jesus Christ was not God at all!”

Scalfari-Bergoglio

The Quote comes from his best friend Scalfari. The citation is discussed by the renowned Vaticanista, Marco Tosatti (link: here).

Schermata-2019-10-09-alle-10.25.19

Here is the English translation (by From Rome):*

When it happened that I discussed these phrases with him, pope Francis said to me:

I am the proven proof that Jesus of Nazareth, once he became man, though a man of exceptional virtue, was not God at all

The ego-mania of that is extraordinary. I would say, it is a totally diabolic boast.

Maybe Bergoglio is not the Anti-Christ, but he certainly seems to think he is!

It is important, that though the Vatican issued a statement attacking the reputation of Scalfari, it did NOT repudiate the quote as unauthentic!

Here Bergoglio is Excommunicated, AGAIN, by canon 1364. — Honestly, one cannot name this man any more in the Canon of the Mass, anywhere or any time. Please read this article (link: here) on what to do now. Though it applies to the idolatry he practiced in the Vatican Gardens on Friday, it’s just as applicable now, for this latest outrageous apostasy.

(Image Credits: A montage of Scalfari and Bergoglio: AKA, Scalfari and Bergoglio: Close collaborators)

_____________

* A Note on this Translation:  The Italian main sentence lacks a pronoun for the verb, so it can be read either as translated here, or as They are the proven proof ….. Also, the final clause says in Italian:  is not at all a God. — Regarding the last clause, I have translated it without the indefinite article, “a”, because the adverb “affatto”, which I render as “at all”, expands the denial of ‘God’ to all senses. And since the sense of “God” is The Divine Nature, the phrase “a God”, refers to “The Divine Nature and Existence”, I have held it unnecessary to say “not at all a God”, since that would be a reduplicative denial. — As for the main verb, I understand it according to the context of the speaker, Scalfari, whom history shows is the real spokesman for Bergoglio when he wants to speak to his initiates of things which he does not yet want to say publicly and openly. This is because he uses Scalfari to emotionally drain those who oppose his heresy and apostasy, by speaking with programmed and intentional language which is capable of a plausible denial after the fact. This is a trick to blame his opponents so as to get them emotionally to be incapable or unwilling to publicly criticize him in the future when he does worse things. — To his initiates, who recognize the Scriptural form:  And he said to me, I am the Way, the truth and the Life, the main verb must be read in the first person singular. But for plausible deniability, Scalfari has inserted the quote without a subject into a discourse on the passages of the Bible in which, according to the doctrines of the Jehovah Witnesses (to which Bergoglio seems to be familiar, if not a believer) prove that Jesus is not God. — Being a hermit, who is more concerned with the theological signification of expressions than other senses, I have translated the phrase into English to manifest what more probably both Scalfari and Bergoglio intended it to mean, when they were speaking in private and discussing how to use it for maximum effect against his enemies, because, obviously, Scalfari and Bergoglio both could have included a subject of the main verb, either Esse (frasi) or something similar, to tie down the meaning to one sense only. So my translation could be called the translation of the Occult meaning as intended and formulated.

Historic Conference on Pope Benedict’s Renunciation: October 21, Rome

All the readers of this Blog are cordially invited to attend, this historic conference on the Renunciation of Pope Benedict, entitled, “Is Pope Benedict XVI still the Successor of Saint Peter?”

Note the term: Successor of Saint Peter. — The reason for this conference is that there is nearly universal confusion over the canonical value of the act posited by Pope Benedict XVI on February 11, 2013, when the Main Stream Media announced that he had resigned the papacy, or at least, acted as if that is what they announced.

What happened in the 58 minutes prior to the public announcement by Mrs. Chirri of ANSA press agency?

Did Pope Benedict resign the papal office?

Is he still the Pope? possessing all the powers and privileges of the Office of Saint Peter?

Is Jorge Mario Bergoglio, consequently, not the pope, and never was the pope?

These questions and more answered simply and matter of factly from the Code of Canon Law, without any private interpretations.

What did Pope John Paul II mean and intend by Canon 332 §2?

TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, please attend the conference at

THE HOTEL MASSIMO D’AZEGLIO

Via Cavour 18

On Monday, October 21, 2019 at 6:15 PM

Free and open to the public. — There will be private security on duty. — Seating is limited, so arrive by 6 PM or you may not get a seat!

Here is the official Italian announcement:

Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi condemns Bergoglio for Vatican Garden Rituals

By Most. Rev. Rene Henry Gracida

With regard to the participation of Francis in the travesty in the Vatican Gardens you can quote me:

“The participation by Francis the Merciful in the pagan rites held in the Vatican Garden is further evidence of his lack of concern for the canonical penalties he is incurring by his repeated participation in heretical and even occult religious ceremonies forbidden to all Catholics, especially one who sits (invalidly ?) on the Throne of Peter. But then he does not seem to have let the excommunication incurred by him under the law of Universi Dominici Gregis bother him and so the penalties incurred by him with increasing regularity these days become easier to dismiss. A day of reckoning will come for him as it will for each of us.”

Blessings,
+The Most Reverend Rene Henry Gracida
Adhuc multiplicabuntur in senecta uberi et bene patientes erunt
Ut adnuntient quoniam rectus Dominus Deus noster et non est iniquitas in eo
(Source: Private Correspondence with the Bishop)

Bergoglio definitively leaves the Catholic Church

October 5, 2019: Rome, Italy — Jorge Mario Bergoglio invites and participates in a pagan act of worship in the Vatican Gardens. See report here

According to Canon 1364… which reads….

PART II : PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES

TITLE I: OFFENCES AGAINST RELIGION AND THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH (Cann. 1364 – 1369)

Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

“Latae Sententia” Means, “without the necessity of any judicial decree or judgement”. Incurrs, means obtains in the sense of becomes liable to.

Apostasy is defined not only as the renunciation of the faith, by a verbal expression, but also as any act which is essentially and totally contrary to the duty of the Faith. Consent to Pagan worship has always been considered and act of apostasy. Ergo, Bergoglio is now outside the Church.

There is no wiggle room here. There is no possibility for a Catholic to invite, consent, participate or promote pagan worship, by asking someone to come to his house or property and perform such a ceremony and receive an idol or consecrated ring from such a ritual.

Evil Jesuit that he is, he did this wicked thing at the opening of the Synod on the Amazon so that all who continue to call him, “Pope” or hold that this is a Synod of the Catholic Church, or can be held, will be IMPLICATED IN FALSE WORSHIP and share in the mortal sin of idolatry by not acting on the teaching of Pope John Paul II in canon 1364.

This is how he just fooled everyone who said that they won’t start a schism and won’t leave the Church. By this act he has founded a New Church and all who continue to call him Pope have just become its members.

Catholics like myself reject Bergoglio, who was not only never the pope, but was a pertinacious public heretic both in Argentina and in the last 6 years.

Fellow Catholics please wake up and do not follow Cardinals, Bishops, priests, and laymen (especially foolish journalists) into apostasy! Remember your loyalty to Jesus who saved you!

How to remove Bergoglio

Anthony Hopkins stars as a priest, performing an exorcism, in a scene from the 2010 movie “The Rite.” (CNS photo/Warner Bros.)

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

What follows here are the canonical steps by which Bergoglio can be peacefully, easily and lawfully removed from his position of power.

First, any Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, whether holding jurisdiction or not, whether of the Latin Rite or not, in his capacity as a member of the College of Bishops needs to make this public declaration, or its equivalent:

As member of the College of Bishops, whose unity with the Successor of Saint Peter is essential to its proper function in the Church for the accomplishment of the will of Christ, to continue His Salvific Mission on Earth, I hereby declare that I have examined the official Latin text of Pope Benedict XVI’s act of renunciation of February 11, 2013 A.,D., which begins with the words Non solum propter, and I have found that it is not in conformity with the requirement of Canon 332 §2, that states explicitly that a papal resignation only occurs when the Supreme Pontiff renounces the Petrine Munus.  Seeing that Pope Benedict renounced only the ministerium which he received from the hands of the Cardinals, and seeing that he did not invoke Canon 38 to derogate from the obligation to name of the office in a matter which violates the rights of all the Faithful of Christ, and even more so, of the members of the College of Bishops, to know who is and who is not the Successor of Saint Peter, and when and when not he has validly renounced his office, I declare out of the fullness of my apostolic duty and mission, which binds me to consider first of all the salvation of souls and the unity of the Church, that Pope Benedict XVI by the act expressed in Non Solum Propter never renounced the Papal Office and therefore has continued until this very day to be the one and sole and true and only Vicar of Jesus Christ and Successor of Saint Peter.  I therefore charge the College of Cardinals with gross negligence in the performance of their duties as expressed in Canon 359 and n. 37 of Universi Domini Gregis by proceeding in February and March of 2013 to the convocation and convening of a Conclave to elect Pope Benedict’s successor when there had not yet been consummated a legal sede vacante. And thus I do declare the Conclave of 2013 was uncanonically convoked, convened and consummated and that the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogio as Successor of Saint Peter is null and void and irritus by the laws themselves of Holy Mother Church, as established by Pope John Paul II.

Second, Catholic Bishops and Cardinals and indeed all the Faithful should personally examine the text of February 11, 2013 according to the norms of Canons 332 §2, canon 17, canon 38, canon 145 §1, canon 41, canon 126, and in particular canon 188. (see ppbxvi.org for more information.)

Third, the Cardinals and Bishops should hold spontaneous regional or universal Synods to confirm the same and publicly affirm the same.

Fourth, the Bishops and Cardinals should call on the Swiss Guard and Vatican Police to arrest Cardinal Bergoglio and detain him and obtain from him public affirmation of the same.

Fifth, the Cardinals should approach Pope Benedict XVI and ask if it is now his intention to resign the Petrine Munus or not. If not, they should convey him to Saint John Lateran’s and acclaim him with one voice as Pope and ask his forgiveness publicly for having defected from him and elected an antipope. If so, they should ask him to redo the renunciation, this time renouncing the Petrine Munus; and then they should convene a Conclave to elect Benedict’s legitimate successor.

 

Benedict said in every way that He did not resign! — An Examination of His Testimonies

_66133919_66133918

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

One of the most common canards used to discount that Pope Benedict XVI is still the pope is that, regardless of all the Canonical Evidence that he did not, He has never publicly affirmed that he did anything other than resign the papacy.

This bold assertion is the kind of propaganda used by intelligence agencies to confuse the Enemy. And if you have not yet considered the evidence, you should take note not to be led astray.

In propaganda of the kind which is used in psychological manipulation, the first characteristic sought is to lie and lie boldly. As Rousseau affirmed, “Lie, Lie and Lie, and something will come of it”, or as Adolf Hitler said, the biggest lie is the most effective:

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X[1]

The Big Lie: Benedict Resigned

The Big Lie operative in the Church today says that “Benedict resigned”.  As I pointed out in my previous post on the Vatican Coup d’etat of Feb. 11, 2013 (see link here), the Vatican has NEVER affirmed by a canonical document or press release that Pope Benedict resigned or renounced the Papacy. They merely confirmed a TWEET by a pool reporter, who knew some Latin.

This contradicts the expressed obligation of the Papal Law on Elections. Because in Pope John Paul II’s Law, Universi Dominic Gregis, n. 37, the Cardinals are obliged not to act if there has been no lawful vacancy of the apostolic see:

37. I furthermore decree that, from the moment when the Apostolic See is lawfully vacant, the Cardinal electors who are present must wait fifteen full days for those who are absent; the College of Cardinals is also granted the faculty to defer, for serious reasons, the beginning of the election for a few days more. But when a maximum of twenty days have elapsed from the beginning of the vacancy of the See, all the Cardinal electors present are obliged to proceed to the election.

And, thus, obviously, to observe that norm, the Cardinals MUST VERIFY whether there is in fact a lawful or canonical sede vacante.

In the present case, therefore, that means that they must verify that the norm of Canon 332 §2 was fulfilled.  But, again, as I have said before, the Vatican has never publicly affirmed that the resignation was canonically in conformity to Canon 332 §2, which is the only canon on papal resignations.

That Pope Benedict never resigned the petrine munus, as Canon 332 §2 requires, is a fact of history. Just read the Latin text of his renunciation and follow the norms of Canon Law on how to read it (see link here, and a discussion here; see an analysis of all the official Vatican translations, all fraudulent, which have attempted to present the Big Lie, here)

But, before we consider the testimonies from our Holy Father, let us first unpack the propaganda, of the Big lie, which is employed by nearly the entire Hierarchy, except Bishop Gracida.

Exposing the Fallacy of Resorting to the Big Lie

Therefore, the canard, that Benedict needs to affirm that he has not resigned the Papacy, before anyone can take seriously the canonical arguments that he did not do so validly are to be accepted — is a complete absurdity! It’s propaganda to support the Big Lie, because it takes as its first premise (though implicit) that the assertion that Benedict did resign has the pride of place, that is, the greater authority.

The international Association of Catholics, which is opposed to the Kasperites,  and called Veri Catholici, recently un-packaged the fallacy of resorting to the Big Lie, thus:

THE INSANITY IS UNENDING! — A supporter of Cardinal Burke told VC HQ that so long as Benedict does not confirm that he meant what he said, there is no evidence that what Cardinal Burke THINKS B16 meant is FALSE. Thus VC will discredit its own organization with truth!

The correct forensic principle, which a canonist SHOULD know, is that what someone says is prima facie what he means, and he who claims that the intention was such as to make it other than prima facie IS REQUIRED TO PROVE HIS INTERPRETATION by a first hand DENIAL of the prima facie.

THUS there is no necessity AT ALL that Benedict confirm that he resigned the ministry not the office, NAY there is the necessity for the Cardinals to obtain from Benedict the statement THAT HE NEVER INTENDED TO RENOUNCE THE MINISTRY BUT RATHER THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY.
But this is impossible and contra factum, because FOR SIX YEARS BENEDICT HAS DRESSED LIKE THE POPE, SIGNED AS THE POPE, GIVEN BLESSINGS AS THE POPE DOES, AND ACCEPTED THE HONORS AND DIGNITY OF THE POPE! If that aint confirmatin of PPBXVI.org nothing is!
And if anyone should claim that he calls Bergoglio the pope and lets him run the church as a pope, nevertheless, though that could put in doubt the 6 year testimony, IT DOES NOT FORENSICALLY INVALIDATE THE PRIMA FACIE rather it argues for coercion or insanity, not validity!
Because FOR THE VALIDITY OF A PAPAL RESIGNATION there is required nothing but the DUE MANIFESTATION OF THE FORMAL SIGNIFICATION OF AN ACT OF RENUNCIATION OF THE PAPAL OFFICE: intentions not expressed are praeter rem!

though (a corruption of) liberty, (or) freedom (as can arise) from coercion or simony can corrupt a valid formal signification, cf canon 332.2 and 188.

(In this quotation I have corrected some typographic errors and elipsees in Italics)

With this preliminary introduction, let us proceed to the main subject then.

Pope Benedict’s Testimonies that He has not Resigned the Papacy

There are several things Pope Benedict did to signify that he never had the intention to resign and that he never did resign.

1. Normas nonnullas

First of all on Feb 22, 2013, he issued certain modifications of Pope John Paul II’s law on Papal Elections. In that Apostolic Letter, entitled Normas nonnullas (see link here), Pope Benedict did NOT make any changes to suit the occasion of a Papal resignation!

This is significant, because the Papal Law only tangentially refers to a sede vacante arising from a papal resignation, and clearly, if He had resigned the Papacy, he should have addressed that error in the Papal Law modifications which he enacted into law on Feb. 22, 2013! Not only did he NOT do that, but he modified a section of the law regarding PAPAL FUNERALS (n. 49). In this way he was giving a big sign that he was going to hold out as the Pope until death.

2. Final Audience of Wednesday, February  27, 2013: in Saint Peter’s Square

Next, In His Holiness’ final public audience to the Faithful, he confirmed this in extraordinary terms which cannot be reconciled with a papal resignation:

Here, allow me to go back once again to 19 April 2005. The real gravity of the decision was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy. He belongs always and completely to everyone, to the whole Church. In a manner of speaking, the private dimension of his life is completely eliminated. I was able to experience, and I experience it even now, that one receives one’s life precisely when one gives it away. Earlier I said that many people who love the Lord also love the Successor of Saint Peter and feel great affection for him; that the Pope truly has brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, throughout the world, and that he feels secure in the embrace of your communion; because he no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to all and all belong to him.

The “always” is also a “for ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.

(In this quotation I have added color to the text)

The Pope could not be more clear, he had resigned the active ministry of the office, not the office. He was resigning the power of governance, but remaining the pope.

All this refers not to a resignation, but a forced abdication or a voluntary retirement of someone who still retains the Papal dignity and office.

3. Pope Benedict leaves Vatican on Feb 28, 2013, as the Pope, not as Cardinal Ratzinger

The Final and loudest visible message was sent by the Pope on the following day, when he left the Vatican, but did NOT lay aside the symbols of the office of the Pope:

Even the New York Times affirmed that the Pope left the Vatican, not Cardinal Ratzinger.

ABC News shows what happened in this video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J–w1dfx-Y

 

Notice the facts, which are indisputable:

  1. Benedict is dressed as the Pope.
  2. All continue to treat him as the Pope.
  3. He is given official escort as a Head of State by the Italian Republic
  4. He flies, not to Munich, where his brother lives, but to Castel Gandolfo, the private residence of THE POPE.

Any objective observer must therefore conclude, that he remains the Pope, and is signaling that he remains the Pope. Because he is acting as the Pope, retiring from a Vatican that no longer wants him, but NOT as a Pope who has just resigned the Papacy.

Q.E.D.

 

______________________

NOTA BENE: Someone may say, But Pope Benedict recently said in June, 2019, that “There is only one Pope, and he is Francis”… That report was entirely false, and intentionally so. Here is more about that from Veri Catholici. Click on both links to read the two stories, the false claim by the Catholic Herald, and the debunking of the false claim by Life Site News:

The Vatican has now accepted that Bergoglio is an AntiPope

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Rome: September 9, 2019 A. D.:  The Vatican has conceded that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an AntiPope. The concession came tacitly as of Saturday, when, after 90 days since the publication of the news that Pope Benedict had accepted the arguments which demonstrated his resignation was invalid (as reported here), the Vatican took no action to discount the report.

The report was public knowledge at Rome, since it was 4 times accessed by computers at the Vatican (some of which were in the offices of the Secretary of State). In response, that office requested the Corriere della Sera to interview Pope Benedict in an attempt to get him to withdraw his tacit acceptance, with the admission on his part, that “The Pope is one, he is Francis”. The interview having failed to extract those words from Benedict — during an exchange of photographs in the Vatican Gardens in the 3rd week of June, or there abouts (the interview never gave a time or place which was specific) — the Vatican Press Office put out a teaser the day before its publication in the Marxist Newspaper, claiming Benedict HAD said those words (Catholic News Agency).

Veri Catholici, the international Association, discounted the report on Friday, after acquiring a copy of the Corriere della Sera’s actual printed interview (As reported here).  LifeSite News, which initially reported the false assertions of the Vatican Press Office, took back the claim a week later in a full article on July 4, 2019. (Veri Catholic also publicly asked Life Site News to investigate the WHY of it — As of today, they have failed to follow through)

The Corriere della Sera subsequently published the “interview” online (see here).

Even Antonio Socci on July 1st remarked the occurrence of the publicity debacle for the Vatican, as another gross fake news story (see end of Socci’s article, where he cites more evidence that Benedict knows he is stil the pope).

But the import of the event was ignored. Namely, that the Vatican was attempting to discount the report by From Rome of the tacit acceptance.

To which I say: Is everyone brain dead at Rome? Can you not put on your thinking cap and do some reasoning, like this?

  • Vatican Press Agency risks its entire reputation by making a false claim about what Benedict had said
  • Corriere della Sera was asked by the Vatican Secretary of State to attempt to extract such a statement from Pope Benedict
  • Pope Benedict refused to make such a statement
  • Pope Benedict had thus publicly reaffirmed he would not discount the assertion of the From Rome Blogger
  • Therefore, Benedict is aware his resignation was not canonically valid
  • Therefore Benedict is aware that he is still the only true Pope and Vicar of Christ

Now that 92 days have passed, the Vatican, not having discounted anything of the above, has conceded that Bergoglio is not the Pope. But at the same time allow him to keep pretending to be the Pope.

But a pretender to the Throne of Saint Peter is an AntiPope.

Therefore, the Vatican has conceded that Bergoglio is an Antipope.

(BTW, for the record, the Vatican Secretary of State had already conceded that Benedict is the Pope; see the report here). And the Vatican has known the resignation was invalid since March 2013, when they tried to cover it up (see the report here).

For the complete canonical demonstration of the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation, see PPBXVI.org

FOR THE LOVE OF JESUS CHRIST, therefore, please spread the news to the whole Catholic World!

 

 

 

 

Come e perché la rinuncia di Papa Benedetto XVI non è valida secondo il Diritto canonico

Trascritto dal sito di Veri Catholici.

Offriamo qui di seguito un calmo e ragionato argomento sul tema circa la invalidità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI, a beneficio dei Cattolici che desiderano conoscere la verità.

Perché un cattolico dovrebbe difendere la validità delle dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI?

Siamo obbligati a farlo secondo la legge canonica? – No,

Si commette peccato in non farlo quando sussiste l’evidenza di invalidità ?- No

Sussiste presupposto di legge circa la validità? – No.

Sussiste l’evidenza circa la non validità? -Si.

Perché le dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI non sono valide?

Per capire il perché richiamiamo il testo originale delle dimissioni e del Diritto Canonico;

Trascriviamo qui di seguito il testo della rinuncia nel testo originale in Latino:

Quapropter bene conscius ponderis huius actus plena libertate declaro me ministerio Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri, mihi per manus Cardinalium die 19 aprilis MMV commisso renuntiare…

Quali sono i requisiti di validità per le dimissioni del Papa? –  Questi si trovano nel Codice di Diritto Canonico del 1983, Canone 332 §2;

§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.

Qual’é quindi la prima condizione o requisito di validità , secondo il canone 332 §2 per la validità delle dimissioni del Papa? – Il requisito e’ che il Romano Pontefice rinunzi il suo munus (muneri suo renuntiet).

Ha il testo delle dimissioni rinunziato al munus? – No, dice chiaramente: declaro me ministerio…renuntiare.

Se la rinunzia non riguarda il munus, trova il canone 332 §2 applicazione? – Si e No. Si perché dal momento in cui non assolve alle condizioni per dimissioni entro I termini (in questo caso il munus) del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. E No, in quanto essendo un atto giuridico che e’ posto al di fuori dei termini del Canone 332 §2 non riguarda le dimissioni del Papa, ma meramente le dimissioni dal servizio attivo.

Possono le dimissioni di Papa Benedetto XVI essere interpretate come valide?

Alcuni dicono, apparentemente a ragione, che il Papa può rinunziare al munus nel rinunziare al ministerium. E’ questo un argomento valido? – No, non lo e’, perché non è materia di mera affermazione, la Legge stessa deve dichiararlo. Si ricorda che non vi può essere innovazione nella Legge della Chiesa in assenza di atto positivo di un superiore competente.

Ma non è un atto di rinunzia un atto giuridico che stabilisce  un nuovo modo di rinunzia? – No. Gli atti giuridici non sono atti tirannici, non possono auto-giustificarsi, ma devono trovarsi in accordo con la Legge della Chiesa. Ciò perché, come dichiarato dal Concilio Vaticano I, persino il Papa non ha autorità per inventare novità.

Ma se si dovesse sostenere che il ministerium si possa supporre o possa essere compreso quale munus, come si dovrebbe provare? – Come enunciato nel Canone 17, quando sia in dubbio il significato della Legge, si deve fare ricorso ad altre parti della Legge, e se non vi si trova chiarezza, si deve fare ricorso al legislatore.

Il Codice di Diritto Canonico autorizza a supporre il “ministerium” quale munus o il “munus” quale ministerium? – No, in nessuna parte del Codice si dice che il ministerium é munus o il munus é ministerium. Infatti, secondo il Canone 17, le definizioni dei termini contenuti nel Codice medesimo, devono essere accettate quale AUTENTICA espressione della mente del legislatore (Papa Giovanni Paolo II) nel promulgare il Codice di Diritto Canonico. Il Canone 145 §1 definisce ogni ufficio ecclesiastico (officium) quale munus, non ministerium.

E la tradizione canonica, richiede rinuncia di munus quale  valide dimissioni dall’uffcio papale? – Si, cio’é chiaro. perché in tutte le dimissioni precedenti non solo c’è rinunzia del munus (o sinonimi: onus, honor, dignitas, o nomi proprii: papatus, episcopatus) ma non c’e’ neppure menzione di ministerium. Neppure esiste tradizione canonica ove si possano supporre termini che non significano munus, quali munus secondo tradizione canonica. Il papa non crea o inventa lingue o forme di significati linguistici, altrimenti nulla sarebbe certo o oggettivo nella Chiesa. Anzi, come dice il canone 38, se un Papa agisce in qualsiasi modo contrario ai termini del Canone 332 § 2, il suo atto è valido solo se menziona esplicitamente la sua intenzione di agire con una deroga ai suoi termini.

Se entrambi il testo del Codice di Diritto Canonico e la tradizione canonica richiedono la menzione del munus in una rinunzia al papato, allora in virtù del Canone 17, coloro I quali sostengono che la rinunzia di Benedetto XVI sia valida, hanno valide ragioni? – No, nessuna.

Pertanto, devono tutti i cattolici riconoscere che in virtù proprio secondo il diritto, la rinunzia non è valida? – Si.

Significa qualcosa che tutti I Cardinali agiscano come se fosse valida? – No, perché secondo il Canone 332 §2 anche se il tutto il mondo sostenesse che la rinunzia è valida, se non incontra le condizioni del Canone 332 §2, non è valida. Non c’e’ la minima possibilità di distorsione.

Ma il fatto che si sia  tenuto un Conclave per eleggere un nuovo Papa, nel Marzo del 2013 non rende valide le dimissioni di Benedetto XVI? Il suo consenso tacito, non le rende valide? – No a tutte e due le domande. Prima di tutto perché nulla rende le dimissioni valide eccetto la conformità al Canone 332 § 2. Secondo perché per istituzione Divina il Munus Petrinum non può essere condiviso con altri, Per cui se Benedetto non lo ha rinunziato, lo detiene. Se lo detiene, eleggere un altro Papa è contrario alla legge divina fintantoché egli è in vita. E nel suo atto di rinunzia, egli non ha ordinato espressamente, che venisse convocato un Conclave in vita sua. Che egli abbia acconsentito a tale cosa, potrebbe essere dovuto a timore o ad errore nella sostanza riguardo a quanto necessario per rinunziare al suo Ufficio. Se dovuto a timore, ciò non lo rende valido. Se egli è in errore sostanziale, secondo il Canone 188, il suo atto è espressamente non valido iure ipso, cio’è proprio secondo il diritto.

Un governo falso per una agenda falsa!

di Frà Alexis Bugnolo

Come cittadino della Repubblica italiana non posso tacere di fronte a una farsa nazionale.

Questa Repubblica, che per sua costituzione è vincolata ai principi della rappresentanza degli elettori e dei valori italiani, non può essere rappresentata in alcun modo, giusto o onesto, dai parlamentari che intraprendono azioni per impedire le elezioni politiche con lo scopo preciso di evitare la propria perdita alle urne!

Ma al di là di questo fatto storico lampante, l’agenda di questo nuovo governo non ha interesse ad aiutare la promozione del bene comune del popolo italiano. È sostenuto da un marxista argentino che ha l’abitudine raccapricciante di raccogliere pervertiti sessuali intorno se stesso. È stato sponsorizzato da un uomo in Francia che ha sposato il suo insegnante di scuola e da una donna in Germania, con una gioventù marxista, che pensa che distruggere la cultura nazionale tedesca sia la cosa migliore che si possa lasciare come eredità alla propria nazione. — Su questa onda di disonestà, Nancy Pelosi e una delegazione del suo partito dagli Stati Uniti hanno ispirato la strategia politica per rovesciare l’ex governo, mentre Donald Trump, contrariamente a tutte le sue dichiarazioni di sostegno a Matteo Salvini, ha annuito alla cosa fatta!

Ora abbiamo un governo con un primo ministro che non è mai stato eletto dal popolo italiano. Un ministro per le famiglie dello stesso partito il cui sindaco nel Nord Italia ha promosso la presa forzata di bambini dai loro genitori e l’uso dell’elettrocuzione per far sì che andasse avanti. E tanti altri incapaci dittatori.

Abbiamo un governo che pensa che l’unico bene per l’Italia sia la distruzione della nazione: l’importazione di popoli che non hanno abilità o talenti per lavorare in Italia, di culture e di religiosità che sono nemici dei valori italiani; la promozione delle perversioni sessuali e la persecuzione delle istituzioni naturali e divine della famiglia; il doppio parla senza fine di un nuovo umanesimo, che allo stesso tempo parli di abbassare e aumentare le tasse, e la generale baldoria che si riscontra tra i marxisti quando rovesciano qualsiasi nazione: i sogni di come derubare l’uomo comune per arricchirsi.

Né posso omettere di sottolineare che questo è un governo, non di nuove promesse, ma di vecchie bugie. — Il marxista ci predica da più di un secolo che solo loro possono realizzare veri progressi, che solo loro difendono i veri diritti dei popoli. Ma il progresso che cercano è il ritorno del neandertaliano alla sua caverna: cioè di una società senza alcuna umanità e solo gli avanzi della bestialità. — Chi con un cervello pensa davvero che il progresso economico o morale si ottenga dando potere ad un partito che pensa di discendere dagli scimpanzé ?!

No, non posso tacere! — E sarebbe ingiusto lasciare fuori che il più grande male che sostiene questo governo è l’incapacità mentale ecclesiastica di leggere il testo latino del Canone 332 §2: un impegno che chiunque con uno studio di due anni sulla lingua latina potrebbe capire se voleva. — Perché chiaramente quando si rinuncia ministerio non si rinuncia muneri in un modo che rite manifestatur.

Caro Signore Gesù Cristo, salva l’Italia dalla follia! Alza il tuo popolo in rivoluzione contro questo Teatro di ipocrisia e bugie! Salva il Suo vero e unico Vicario sulla terra, Papa Benedetto XVI!

Veri Catholici: An Open Letter to Cardinals Burke and Sarah

Their Eminences, Cardinals Burke and Sarah

The International Association « Veri Catholici » has published this open Letter to the Cardinals, on their twitter feed at @VeriCatholici. I post it here (in its unrolled format) for the sake of those who do not have a Twitter Account.

Here beings the Introduction, with the first paragraph of the Letter subordinated to it:

The rest of the text of the open Letter continues here:

“It’s also evident that canon 124.1 and canon 188 require that the proper object of canon 332.2 be posited, namely the renunciation of the munus, otherwise, in virtue of canon 188, the substantial error of doing otherwise invalidate the act ipso iure!

“Now if a pope should act in violation of Canon 332.2, since in doing so he would injure the rights of the whole Church to know who is and who is not the true Pope, he would have to apply canon 38 derogating from the discrepancy. But Benedict did not do anything of the kind!

“Therefore, he is still the pope, and canon 359 invalidated the Conclave of 2013. Also, on this account, all the Cardinals and Bishops ARE WRONG to reason from their presumption that Francis is the pope toward any conclusion. As he never was. He is an antipope, a usurper.

“Nor can one argue that the Pope, being above canon law, is above Canon 332.2, because that canon enshrines merely the principles of the Natural Law, which are superior to the Pope and from which he CANNOT dispense!

“One aspect of which is the semiotic law, whereby the being of a thing cannot in a forensic act be rite manifestatur by a term which signifies an accident of it.

“Take this example. A pope has the habit of calling the burden of his work, Bananas. And one day while shaving says, I am renouncing Bananas. Can the Cardinals lawfully proceed to elect another, if the Pope says nothing more? No, because Bananas is not a due term for a legal act.

“Even if he said, I am renouncing bananas, during a solemn Consistory of the Cardinals, they could not proceed to elect another. Not even if he commanded them or allowed them explicitly to do so, because until he says I renounce the Papacy, Christ does not remove the office!

“These Cardinals also need to recognize that the criteria employed to determine validity in contractual law is not the same in beneficiary law. For in contractual law, as is used in Annulments evidence regards whether there was a right intention, this is principal.

“But in beneficiary law, which regards bequests, the intention has no force, what matters is only the verbal signification of the act of bequest. Renunciations fall under beneficiary law, not contractual law. This is the fundamental legal error of the Cardinals and bishops.

“For just as it is impossible for anyone to be the Pope unless he succeeds to the Chair of Peter, the office, so it is impossible for anyone to renounce the Papal Office unless in a forensic act there is an explicit renunciation of that office.

“The case is analogous to property law, wherein no one is the rightful owner of the same single property, until the one who holds the property rights renounces them in a legal act. Renouncing only the usufruct (ministerium) does not grant the title to the successor in law.

A Most Worthy Cause

Christ gave everything for our salvation: thus, we only exist as Christians if we live to serve Him.

Contrary to the common misconception, the works of mercy are not a decoration on the Christian life, they should be the very foundation of it. For this reason all of us should be doing a lot more than just our daily duties according to our state. We should be doing something more and this something should be aiding the poor and needy.

Most of you who read this blog know little or nothing about what I do off the blog. I want to tell you so that you might have the merit in joining in a very needed work.

Insignia of the Ordo Militaris Catholicus

As you may know, the persecution of Christians is not something of ages past, but is an on going tragedy of our present age, and something of which is rarely spoken of as much as it deserves. Since 2000 A. D., more than 1 Million Christians have been put to death in hatred of the Faith. A large portion of these are Catholics in the Mid East, Africa and Asia.

Following an inspiration which I received while praying in the Church of Saint Francis of Assisi, in Bagnoregio, Italy, more than 3 years ago, I have worked to encourage Catholics to rally to the defense of persecuted Catholics, especially priests.

With those who opened their hearts to these appeals, we founded the Ordo Militaris Catholicus: an international Association which aims to revive and re-practice the charity of Catholics of old who sacrificed everything to come to the help of persecuted Catholics.

You can read more about the Association at ordo-militaris.us.

Much of our work is helping persecuted Clergy and Catholic refugees. In fact, all our humanitarian support goes to or through the hands of Catholic Clergy. We help them whether they are persecuted by Muslims or Modernists. Alas, there are even priests who are being excommunicated merely for preaching the Faith which was always preached or for defending the canonical prerogatives of Pope Benedict XVI against the absurd claims of the Lavender Mafia (a.k.a. Team Bergoglio).

Some of our projects have been sending food and housing assistance to the Catholics of Mosul and Lebanon. Helping a Catholic school for the poor in India; a Catholic parish in Hawaii which was ransacked. Placing ads in Newspapers to propagate news of Pope John Paul II’s vision of the Islamic Invasion of Europe, nearly 30 years ago, in which he called on the whole Church to oppose it.

As a Franciscan Brother I work without salary and have nothing monetarily to give the poor whom I come to know of, having given all my possessions and inheritance to the poor when I became a friar.

But what I do have is the good will of the thousands of readers of this Blog, From Rome, and so I ask EACH OF YOU, to consider making a pledge in the Ordo Militaris Catholicus, through their website’s Donate Page. Everything raised by the Ordo Militaris Catholics goes to humanitarian efforts. We have no paid employees, only free volunteers.

The Order gets no support from any other organization. We depend on the Catholics who still have the Faith. Please help this Most Worthy Cause.

Sincerely in Christ,

Br. Alexis Bugnolo